Ups!...Kay Says Iraq Likely Had No Banned Arms

[adlep]

link
Hehehehehe
Its time to replace Kelly....

 

[Piano Man]

That isn't funny, it's a God damn tragedy.

 

[BDawg]

*sigh* It's never been about the WMD. It's been about stopping a tyranical regime. Can you seriously say the world isn't better with Saddam Hussein gone?

No one ever said anything about WMD. Geez, you traitor liberals...

 

[heartsurgeon]

Asked whether he feels President Bush (news - web sites) owes the American people an apology for starting the war on the basis of apparently flawed intelligence, Kay said: "I actually think the intelligence community owes the president rather than the president owing the American people.

"You have to remember that this view of Iraq was held during the Clinton administration and didn't change in the Bush administration. It is not a political `got you' issue. It is a serious issue of how you could come to the conclusion that is not matched by the future."

this is why most Democrats (several of whom were on the congressional intelligence committees) voted for the War in Iraq.
given the intelligence assessments, the attack on the U.S., Bush followed a responsible course to protect the U.S.

now answer me this..Democrats frequently state that Bush is a moron. Democrats frequently "defend" their decision to vote for the war in Iraq by stating they were "deceived" about the threat of WMD by Bush.

Well if Bush is such a moron, how did he manage to fool all those "smart" Democrats. And if those Democrats are so easily fooled by a moron, are they really fit to be in a position of Leadership with such bad judgement?

Lets quit trying to make the prosecution of the war against terrorism a "political" punching bag, because it can bounce hit back as well.

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: BDawg

*sigh* It's never been about the WMD. It's been about stopping a tyranical regime. Can you seriously say the world isn't better with Saddam Hussein gone?

No one ever said anything about WMD. Geez, you traitor liberals...

Please say you're being sarcastic.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Asked whether he feels President Bush (news - web sites) owes the American people an apology for starting the war on the basis of apparently flawed intelligence, Kay said: "I actually think the intelligence community owes the president rather than the president owing the American people.

"You have to remember that this view of Iraq was held during the Clinton administration and didn't change in the Bush administration. It is not a political `got you' issue. It is a serious issue of how you could come to the conclusion that is not matched by the future."

this is why most Democrats (several of whom were on the congressional intelligence committees) voted for the War in Iraq.
given the intelligence assessments, the attack on the U.S., Bush followed a responsible course to protect the U.S.

now answer me this..Democrats frequently state that Bush is a moron. Democrats frequently "defend" their decision to vote for the war in Iraq by stating they were "deceived" about the threat of WMD by Bush.

Well if Bush is such a moron, how did he manage to fool all those "smart" Democrats. And if those Democrats are so easily fooled by a moron, are they really fit to be in a position of Leadership with such bad judgement?

Lets quit trying to make the prosecution of the war against terrorism a "political" punching bag, because it can bounce hit back as well.

Prosecuting the war against terrorism is fine, unfortunately it's been sidetracked by Bushes war in Iraq!

 

[Moonbeam]

Still, "that is not the same thing as saying it was not a serious, imminent threat," he said Sunday. "That is a political judgment," he said, "not a technical judgment."
---------------------
What a joke. A political judgment my ass. A thing is either am emminent threat or it isn't. There is a reality involved.

heartsurgeon, there is no bounce back where principle reigns. Screw the democrats who voted for the war. I will be voting to remove my local democratic congressman for that reason.

 

[heartsurgeon]

I will be voting to remove my local democratic congressman for that reason

We grow closer every day in our words and deeds....me thinks you are my doppleganger

 

[tnitsuj]

REPOST X 5

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Asked whether he feels President Bush (news - web sites) owes the American people an apology for starting the war on the basis of apparently flawed intelligence, Kay said: "I actually think the intelligence community owes the president rather than the president owing the American people.

"You have to remember that this view of Iraq was held during the Clinton administration and didn't change in the Bush administration. It is not a political `got you' issue. It is a serious issue of how you could come to the conclusion that is not matched by the future."

this is why most Democrats (several of whom were on the congressional intelligence committees) voted for the War in Iraq.
given the intelligence assessments, the attack on the U.S., Bush followed a responsible course to protect the U.S.

now answer me this..Democrats frequently state that Bush is a moron. Democrats frequently "defend" their decision to vote for the war in Iraq by stating they were "deceived" about the threat of WMD by Bush.

Well if Bush is such a moron, how did he manage to fool all those "smart" Democrats. And if those Democrats are so easily fooled by a moron, are they really fit to be in a position of Leadership with such bad judgement?

Lets quit trying to make the prosecution of the war against terrorism a "political" punching bag, because it can bounce hit back as well.

Prosecuting the war against terrorism is fine, unfortunately it's been sidetracked by Bushes war in Iraq!

I agree, that's it in a nutshell.

 

[tallest1]

Heartsurgeon, okay, I'll take your point of view here.

We'll say that Bush wasn't at fault. It was the intelligence that both he and the democrats were fed. With that said, 2 things:

1) Given all the intelligence at hand, wouldn't there be an ounce of facts that DON'T support a war in Iraq? I mean, why not? Heres the problem: somewhere in the confusion, the goal of several projects changed from "Find out whats going on in Iraq" to "Give us reasons to invade Iraq". If you say it was the former, then Bush is even more guilty for not only shuffling conflicting facts under the rug and influencing future findings. Remember this quote?

"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Selfless liberators indeed. We were fed inaccuracies from the get go and Bush didn't want to validate anything until AFTER we went in. To say that a senator knew/knows everything that a PRESIDENT knows is a joke. And how would we know what Bush knows? Because he tells us everything he knows, of course, bias, misconseptions and all. Bush didn't tell us whats going on in Iraq. He argued to us what he believed was going on in Iraq. Thats far from truth, my friend. If anything, Bush is guilty of horrible judgement. Our only crime has been believing him. Aren't we the unpatriotic ones.

2) Even worse, the facts were slowly seeping out of the shack. Our reasoning for going to Iraq (see quote above) was blown out of the water. So what does he do? He desperately throws more money at Iraq, hoping to find something that would make turn his lies into truth. Then when nothing is found, in comes the "we are liberators" BS.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: tallest1

Bush didn't want to validate anything until AFTER we went in.

How would you propose we validate the intelligence without being there?

Maybe it's me, but my interpretation of the article that was linked must be different than many of you.

I think these are some important points:

But on Sunday, Kay reiterated his conclusion that Saddam had "a large number of WMD program-related activities." And, he said, Iraq's leaders had intended to continue those activities.

"There were scientists and engineers working on developing weapons or weapons concepts that they had not moved into actual production," Kay said. "But in some areas, for example producing mustard gas, they knew all the answers, they had done it in the past, and it was a relatively simple thing to go from where they were to starting to produce it."

Sounds to me like they had weapons programs and we had no way of really knowing what stage these programs were in or whether they were actually producing weapons yet since they were keeping these programs hidden from us.

Kay also said chaos in postwar Iraq made it impossible to know with certainty whether Iraq had had banned weapons.

And, he said, there is ample evidence that Iraq was moving a steady stream of goods shipments to Syria, but it is difficult to determine whether the cargoes included weapons, in part because Syria has refused to cooperate in this part of the weapons investigation.

Are you sure they didn't move WMD's to Syria?
Sounds like we really don't know if they may have done this.

Asked whether President Bush (news - web sites) owed the nation an explanation for the gap between his warnings and Kay's findings, Kay said: "I actually think the intelligence community owes the president, rather than the president owing the American people."

Self-explanatory.

 

[chess9]

Here's what's wrong. I've mentioned this before. We're having a pop quiz tomorrow so better study up!

One of our illustrious Senators from California <cough, cough> stated two days ago on NPR that she didn't look carefully at the intelligence reports, i.e, the footnotes. She relied upon the conclusions of the experts. All the Democrats who voted for this war resolution did the same thing she opined.

When you know you have a physics test the next day do you read just the bold type in your text? Well, the C students do. The A students read everything, including the fine print, the Cliff Notes, and anything else they can get their hands on.

Congressmen will tell you they are too busy to read all that crap. Like the Omnibus Bill just passed. Well, get another job!

They just didn't do their homework. Now Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, and all the other Dems who voted for the resolution look like they've been OWNED. Seriously OWNED.

This is a strong argument against any of them being President. Before you send our boys to war you'd better do your homework. I don't care if you have to stay up all night for a year to get it done. GET IT DONE. I am sorry if this sounds harsh and unforgiving but it's the truth. We have too many lazy, self-indulgent MUSHROOMS sitting in Congress. And a lot of them are Democrats.

Most of the Republicans are just as bad.

Anyway, this is one of the reasons I supported Dean early on. He gave the issue more than 5 minutes thought. And he wasn't even IN Congress. Maybe he had the benefit of not being blinded by the carefully orchestrated lies of the Bush intelligence briefings. BUT, and I think this is the key, I'll bet his rigorous training as a physician taught him to not take everything at face value. To look beneath the surface. To question and think independently. Much of Congress on both sides are just sheep. What do I believe in today Mr. Majority Leader? Please, God, send these people to Pakistan or Burundi or the SOUTH POLE!

Bush won this battle because he worked harder for it. Well, kudos to Bush. At least he understands that hard work is still necessary. When will these lazy Democrats pick up the idea? And will any of them work hard enough to beat Bush? I am not optimistic, excepting Dean.

-Robert